Journalism: The Future

11. When will newspapers disappear completely? How about other news media like television news and radio journalism?

“Times are tough for the newspaper industry,” writes one well-known media analyst. “Advertising is in a slump some analysts are calling the worst in 20 years. Profits are down substantially at many papers. Vacancies are being left unfilled and budgets are being squeezed if not slashed. Almost everywhere...the mood is black. Perhaps because the business has been so lucrative for so long, the painful decline in advertising caught many in the industry unprepared, prompting a wave of anxiety about the future.” That quote is by Alex Jones, then the New York Times media reporter, and it is dated January 6, 1991. Worries that the news business is in trouble are nothing new. What might be new is both the scale of the crisis and the increasingly confident predictions of mass media extinction. A decade and a half into the 21st century, regular forecasts that the printed newspaper will one day (maybe even one day soon) vanish completely appear regularly. In mid-2014, digital theorist Clay Shirky published an analysis, titled “Last Call” and starkly subtitled “The End of the Printed Newspaper.” In it, Shirky sarcastically argued “maybe 25 year olds will start demanding news from yesterday, delivered in an unshareable format once a day. Perhaps advertisers will decide “Click to buy” is for wimps. Mobile phones: could be a fad.” Just a few days earlier, David Carr of the New York Times noted that “Print Was Down, Now Out,” and saw the spinning off of print divisions of multi-media conglomerates into stand-alone companies as the beginning of the end of newspapers in their current form. Predicting the demise of newspapers has a long pedigree: in The Last Newspaper, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Professor Philip Meyer forecast that the last newspaper would be printed in 2043. Even the actor Cedric the Entertainer, appearing on the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, speculated the final newspaper would roll of the presses in 2039. All that said it seems unlikely that the newspaper itself will entirely vanish. Even the printed newspaper seems destined to last for a long time in one form or another, and the same goes for a variety of other news media formats. There is a long history of old technologies and media forms being repurposed, even when their original social function has been overtaken by technological, economic, or political changes. For instance, it might have been entirely reasonable to expect that radio would disappear after the invention of television; who, after all, would want to listen to words without pictures once words and pictures together were available? This, of course, is not what happened. Instead, radio shifted from being a national medium to a primarily local medium, ceding the national news agenda for several decades to television (indeed, in 1970 radio actually moved back into the national news business with the founding of NPR). Likewise, the printed newspaper did not vanish with the emergence of radio, despite the “press-radio war” of the 1930s Instead, both the printed newspaper and the growing power of radio news accommodated each other in a variety of unforeseen ways. It’s possible the current shift to digital is more profound than these older changes. It’s possible that printed news published on a more or less daily basis, along with television news updates and radio news, really will vanish. The idea of digital convergence – the fact that what we’re seeing online is not really the emergence of a new medium but the bundling of a variety of formats onto a single technological device— is a powerful argument that many news formats will disappear. But still. Communications history teaches us that we shouldn’t assume media formats entirely vanish, but rather that they often find surprising ways to accommodate each other. This is likely to be as true for whatever we call “television” twenty years from now as for printed news. Rather than disappear, television and print journalism will probably adopt new social roles.

12. What will the “new social roles” of these old media outlets be?

Text journalism will increasingly provide context for breaking news events, while visual journalism will focus more on discrete occurrences. And “auditory news” will also focus heavily on a combination of context and story telling. Let’s start by distinguishing what we have long called visual news (television) and news based on text (primarily housed in newspapers but also in magazines), and by noting that these distinctions have become increasingly hard to justify over the last decade and a half. And we’ll probably continue to see the blurring of the lines with regard to these different formats, as journalists are increasingly trained to be proficient (or at least better than adequate) in multiple forms of media production as internet news sites incorporate video, audio, graphical, and narrative text into single stories. There is also an increasing trend at many journalism schools to eliminate different media “tracks” for incoming students As lines between different media format blur, it remains important to keep in mind that different types of media really do different things. They do different things for the reader, who gains different types of knowledge and gratification from each of the stylistic genres, as well as for writers and producers, who understand the journalism they produce in each of these different media formats in slightly different ways . We can expect the social role of visual, video media to remain that of bringing readers dramatic or explanatory information, with an emphasis, on the dramatic end of the moving-image spectrum. However, an increasing percentage of this content will probably be submitted by ordinary people rather than professional journalists. Even today, most news organizations use some amateur footage on a daily basis, with some, like al-Jazeera Arabic, using as many as 11 hours of it per day. In addition, the line between newspapers and weekly or even monthly magazines will continue to shrink, with the amount of “interpretive” or “contextual” journalism continuing to grow. The social context of print, in other words, will shift even further towards narrative and explanation. And this shift will be paralleled online as well, with the continued rise of digital explanatory journalism, quantitative reporting, and contextual information graphics. In other words, we might want to spend less time asking “when will print vanish?” and more time asking “what will print journalism continue to do that it does better than anyone else? How about televisual, audio, and data-oriented journalism? And how will these different forms make citizens either more or less informed about the world around them?”

13. Is there a magic bullet that is going to solve all of journalism’s future revenue problems? Can “ paywalls” save the news?

So what are paywalls? One way to think about them is as subscription fences that keep readers from freely accessing online news content. In many ways, the logic behind them is straightforward: just as a newspaper doesn’t show up on your doorstep everyday without your paying for it (though it might if the newspaper delivery worker has made a mistake!) you increasingly can’t gain access to some online journalism without spending money on it. But paywalls won’t save the news. They will grow in importance and increasingly become less controversial. But they aren’t a magic bullet. Indeed, the fact we even have to answer this question (and that we’re calling the barrier between accessing news and paying for it a “paywall” rather than an online subscription) shows just how complex the future of journalistic business models really is, and how much has changed in our discussion of them over the years. Hundreds of newspapers and magazines are now charging their readers for some form of “metered access.” In other words, readers are charged for the news they consume after an initial round of free articles (usually somewhere in the range of 10 articles per month). Even a few years ago, the idea that newspapers would charge their readers for news content was seen as economic heresy, or public interest apostasy, or both. In a 2009 article called “Now Pay Up,” The Economist cited only a few papers, the Wall Street Journal and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette among them, which required readers to pay for access to news online. As is so often the case, the New York Times was at the forefront of a broader change in revenue strategy in the United States; the paper’s introduction of a metered model in the Spring of 2011 led to a veritable stampede of other news properties to introduce metered access over the next several years. (Interesingly, the situation was quite different in Europe, with the Times of London, Le Figaro, Handelsblatt and Berliner Morgenpost--all major European newspapers--all introducing paywalls before the NYTimes.) But, how successful will this strategy be in the long run? The answer to that question is actually fairly simple: meters and walls will provide news organizations with some revenue, but not nearly enough to maintain business operations and staffing levels as they have existed for the past fifty years. Given that, it appears that many companies now charging for news have moved on from the pay wall debate. They have moved beyond, in other words, debates about whether or not to force readers to pay for news: they should, these companies argue. Their strategy now revolves around figuring out how requiring consumers to register for access to content can also help news organizations build up an informational portfolio about the habits, needs, and interests of these very specific and news-focused consumers. News organizations have come to terms with the fact that some of their readers will be willing to pay for their content, and that these are the readers who are most likely to fund their journalism in other ways—whether they purchase additional, bonus journalistic products (like access to archives) or sign themselves up for supplementary updates containing the latest breaking news. In addition, as these organizations learn more about the people who are paying for their content, they can turn around and use the data they collect from these people to better tailor advertisements to them. This has quite obviously been the strategy of the New York Times, but even that strategy wasn’t enough to stop the Times from laying off, yet again, a large number newsroom workers in the fall of 2014.

14. You said that hundreds of newspapers and magazines have instituted metered models for access to news content. Is that pretty much all of journalism, then? No, it is far from being all of journalism. Many online only publications, new journalistic startups, and many print-digital hybrids still offer all their content online for free, and will continue to do so for many years to come. Almost no broadcast news found online operates from behind a paywall, at least not yet.

15. Why?

There are a few possibilities here. Once upon a time, it might have been likely that some of these companies had a cultural aversion to charging their consumers money for news. The famous (if misquoted) phrase “information wants to be free” was often used to justify not charging readers money to access journalism on the internet by claiming it would be impossible, or morally wrong, or both. Now, though, it seems like this rationale has largely disappeared. It no longer seems crazy to people that they pay for journalism on the internet. But if this is true, and if the “culture of free content” really has faded away, then why isn’t every news company charging for news? Why are some sites (including some of the most popular, like Buzzfeed, Vox, Upworthy, and Gawker) trying to pay for their journalism without asking their readers to pay as well? In part, the answers to this are economic: despite the growth in “direct payment models” for news, some outlets have continued to try to find other ways to subsidize the journalism they produce?

16. So what are these other models? What other options for future revenue growth are there?

The next few years will witness the continued growth of four major business models for online journalism: the direct payment model, the native advertising model, the venture capital model, and the traditional advertising model. The first model, the direct payment model eliminates the intermediary organizations that have long stood between news consumers and news producers. In earlier eras of news, the relationship between audiences and producers of news was mediated in two ways: first, by the business departments of newspapers who negotiated with outside advertisers and whose dealings were walled off from the editorial side of the company, and second by the advertisers themselves. Advertisers paid news companies in order to be able to reach readers. The amount readers themselves subsidized news organizations through the direct purchasing of their content through subscriptions and newsstand sales has varied over time, but at least since the start of the 20th century it never represented the majority of the newspaper’s income. This is the American story; European newspapers normally receive much more income from subscriptions and sales, much less from advertising. In years to come, U.S. newspapers are likely to see a greater and greater emphasis on readers paying directly for media content, including news content. Early 2013 was something of a landmark in this regard, as it marked the first time ever that annual circulation revenues passed advertising revenues at the flagship New York Times. How will news organizations make their money in the future? One answer is that readers will start to pay for the news they want directly. The second possible future business model continues to rely more heavily on advertisements, but advertisements of a radically different kind. Called “native advertising,” these ads are designed internally by creative teams at news organizations and then folded into publications so they largely “blend in” with actual news content. Not surprisingly, these native ads have been very controversial. They fundamentally rely on a sort of reader deception in order to be successful and also challenge the church-state separation between the editorial and business sides of many news companies. However, native advertising has also been very successful. Vox Creative and Buzzfeed Creative now work with advertisers to help them directly market their content, with Buzzfeed native advertising making a reported $120 million in sales in 2014. But its not only new entrants into the journalism space that are dong this- even venerable outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post are. Internal teams at these publications also act as externally focused technology teams as well, with some even going so far as to build and market content management systems that can be sold to other news organizations and publishers of various kinds. How will news organizations make money? They will make money by making better advertisements and by blurring the lines between news and advertisements in the first place. A third model for news is perhaps the oldest, as well as the simplest: online advertising, with ads popping up or appearing on webpages, ads that are clearly marked out from the rest of the content. But isn’t traditional online advertising dying? These advertisements, publishers seem to have concluded, were a losing business and would never provide news organizations with enough revenue to make a significant dent in their expenses. But two developments over the last few years have changed this calculus enough to at least prompt news companies to revisit traditional online ads: the shift to the so-called “mobile web” and direct partnerships between online platforms like Facebook and select news publishers like the New York Times. Both these developments are related. Mobile traffic now accounts for a larger percentage of overall internet traffic than does PC- based traffic. Much of this traffic from mobile, in turn, is devoted to mobile apps rather than the “mobile web”— users spend a whopping 86% of their time on apps, versus only 14% on the web. The hope amongst many in the news industry is that the advertising experience will be substantially different enough on cells phones that it will make display ads more lucrative again. A second important development in the evolving conversation about online advertising emerged only in early 2015, with the debut of Facebook’s “Instant Articles.” Under the instant article program, a few select news organizations began to host content directly on Facebook, rather than uploading them to their own homepages and linking to them off Facebook. These instant articles promised faster load times and improved visual display, particularly on Facebook’s mobile app. Facebook has also promised publishers 70% of the revenue generated by adjacent display ads, and access to the metrics about each article. If Facebook really does service better advertisements for news stories than these companies themselves do, the value of display ads. might go up even as journalism organizations sacrifice some control over their content. But even after all the hoopla about Facebook Instant Articles in the early summer of 2015, it’s unclear if these articles would amount to anything more than an afterthought for most news organizations. Following the excitement about Instant Articles when they debuted, there were no new articles posted again for several months. This gap between the buzz surrounding the initial product launch and day-to-day reporting practice points out how hard it is to foster change in the world of journalism. There is a fourth and final possible future business model for news—but we might call it less of a long-term model than a temporary holding strategy. Over the last few years, the largest funding streams for many of the newest digital news / entertainment hybrids have come from venture capitalists and Silicon Valley. In 2014, Andreessen Horowitz invested $50 million in BuzzFeed and valued it as being worth $850 million dollars. Vox Media was valued at $350 million in 2014. And while these venture capitalists (Vcs) may be impressed with plans to create and market content-management systems (CMS’s) and build native ads, the fact is that these investments are usually made on the basis of predicted future growth. In other words, Buzzfeed may not be worth $850,000,000 today, but it will be worth that much money one day in the future. Is that right? History has shown that VC valuations do not always pan out, and one of the biggest future questions for the startup news business will be to see how many of these infusions of cash pay off for journalism in the long run. There is the distinct possibility that the current value of these new digital media startups constitutes a bubble and that many of them could collapse in much the same way that “Pets dot com” did in the early 2000s. If this happens, this fourth option will not have amounted to much of a “business model” at all.

17. How about public funding for news, could that somehow solve the journalism revenue crisis?

No. Public funding for journalism won’t grow in the years to come; in fact, funding levels will probably decline. But the government can affect news production in ways that go beyond simple funding. The United States spends comparatively little money on public broadcasting: $3.00 per U. S. citizen, $22 per person in Canada, $80 in Britain, and $100 and more in Nordic countries. Given that, it’s unlikely that increased public funding will solve the news crisis in the United States. It seems far more likely that government funding for public journalism will decline in the future, especially if critiques of government spending continue in the manner they have for the past several decades. But while an increase in funding for journalism broadcast outlets seems unlikely, the Federal government still faces a number of regulatory decisions that will less directly affect the future economics of news production and media content. One example of this is the recent skirmish over “network neutrality” (more often called “net neutrality) in the United States. The debate over net neutrality basically involved an argument over the question of whether or not Internet Service Providers (ISPs) could institute tiered pricing for the preferential treatment of certain types of internet traffic. Could Netflix strike a deal with Comcast, in other words, for its movies to be shown at higher speeds (and thus in higher quality) than the content over YouTube? Historically this type of tiered pricing hasn’t been the norm online, but the explosion of video traffic and the increasing merger between digital and broadcast content called that rigid neutrality of the network into question. In 2015, however, the Federal Communications Commission decided to reclassify broadband services as a Title II communications service, reinforcing tacit network neutrality principles. When broadband service gets classified under Title II that means that it is treated as a core communications service, which gives the FCC a stronger legal authority to regulate it. Because of this reclassification, principles of non-discrimination of online traffic remained in force. Now, what does all this have to do with the future of journalism? Forty or even 20 years ago, journalism organizations (particularly broadcasters) might have wanted to see network neutrality rules get overturned! They did, after all, produce the majority of broadcast news content and were well funded enough to pay for special treatment by internet service providers. Those days, however, are long past. Indeed, some of the most interesting startup news organizations of the last few years have been startup broadcasting companies (like Fusion, which is a partnership between Walt Disney and Univision and aimed at the Hispanic market, and Vice, which in addition to online content also specializes in edgy video news from places like North Korea and Islamic State occupied territory in Syria and Iraq.) Given the fragmentation of today’s journalism market, and the relatively high importance of new news organizations in plotting a future of news, government decisions to reclassify broadband as Title II can actually help emerging news organizations navigate the new digital landscape. If a new online-only digital news entrant like Vice decides they want to nvest money in gathering news from hotsopts around the globe, they can do so knowing that the journalism they produce will be treated just the same- in trms of streaming and download speeds- as news produced by an already established competitor. The U.S. government faces many media regulatory decision that go beyond debates over net neutrality, of course. But focusing on this topic helps us understand that government regulation can impact the future financial fortunes of journalism organizations in ways that go beyond the (relatively limited) direct funding levels provided to direct news production. There are many ways that newes media organizations can be subject to public intervention, even if we know that government funding levels won’t be increasing anytime soon. Indeed, the distinction between public, non-profit, and commercial media is getting more tangled than ever.

18. Will non-profit news outlets become key players in the journalism landscape in the future?

In the future, not-for-profit news companies will produce only a small percentage of the journalism in the U.S. However, it is also likely that this kind journalism will have an above average impact on audiences and the public. On the one hand, there are a growing number of non-profit news organizations in the United States. These emerging organizations are having an impact both on journalism business models (because they provide a viable model for other news organizations to follow) and health of democracy in the United States (because of the journalism they are actually doing). And yet,for all the good they provide for both journalism and the public, the finances of most non-profit news organizations are fragile. They depend on unpredictable grants from national and local foundations, private donations, audience memberships and fund-raising events. Much of the future of non-profit news depends on actions taken by the Internal Revenue Service. For several years during the height of the journalism financial crisis (when legacy news organizations were cutting staff and circulation at a pace which far outstripped the creation of news business models) there was a common complaint launched against the IRS that its rules and guidelines made unclear what kind of non-profit news would be ok. The IRS had not been in the habit of designating news organizations not for profits, and the more politicized nature of many of these early journalism companies made for some uncertainty. For a year and a half, pressure mounted on the government to clarify the IRS rules so news organizations would know where they stood. Much of the uncertainty about the non-profit status of news organizations has dissipated in the past few years as the IRS has clarified its criteria for evaluating news organizations, and as they in general have gotten more used to the idea. But it is important to keep in mind that, ultimately, news organizations are not totally in control of whether they get to claim tax-exemption or not. Even with an increasingly smooth path to 501(c)3 status, though, it still seems likely that only portion of news and journalism will be produced through a strictly not-for-profit business model. There are at least two reasons for this. First, the dominant media structures in the United States have been resolutely for profit for most of the last two centuries. When institutions and organizations remain in one particular mold for a long time, the tendency is for them to remain in that mold even amidst many other changes. Scholars call this “path dependency.” For most news organizations, the “path” has been one oriented around commercial profit. It is likely this commercial path will start to break down to some degree, but inertial remains a powerful force. Second, much of the news produced by non-profit news organizations like Pro-Publica is niche-focus and assumes a fairly high degree of interest in politics and pubic issues. Involved, engaged readers are the core audience of many of these non-profit news companies. And while it is likely that there are citizens whose needs for in-depth news reporting are currently being unmet, it also seems likely that this number is (relatively) small. In other words, non-profit media organizations have tended to produce specialist journalism. We might even call it elite journalism! And there is only so much elite interest to go around.

19. How are distinctions between non-profit, for-profit, and public media becoming harder to draw?

There’s an important addendum to the story we’ve laid out so far about public and other non- profit media. Journalism scholars often write about public media in the United States as if it is an alternative to the corporatized, advertising-driven (and increasingly Silicon Valley oriented) commercial press. However, these lines are quickly blurring, especially but not only in public radio. The vastly under funded but relatively popular American public media system is turning to advertising, and to a variety of Silicon Valley inspired organizational innovations, in order to make up for the shortfall of shrinking government support from the CPB (Corporation For Public Broadcasting). Many of these developments are new and likely to evolve in the years ahead, and so these are just a few examples of the shrinking line between public and commercial journalism in the U.S. Most of them are drawn from the world of public radio, where the changes in journalism and news seem the most pronounced, though the move of the iconic children’s television show “Sesame Street” from PBS to HBO is emblematic of the larger pressures faced by public media outlets regardless of content type and media format. Following the success of the podcast “Serial” in the Fall of 2014, there has been a veritable podcast “gold rush,” with a number of innovative new shows taking advantage of the fact that the FCC did not impose sponsorship guidelines on podcasts like they did over radio airwaves. For traditional, terrestrial public radio, the FCC limits the types of sponsorship that programs can receive and the length of the underwriting segments that can appear on air (usually limited to 15 seconds). All this is done in order to keep public radio “commercial free.” However, there are currently no guidelines for podcasts, which means that there are greater opportunities to raise revenue without running afoul of regulations. According to one website that monitors public radio, “NPR’s revenue from podcast advertising had doubled from fiscal year 2013 to 2014. Downloads of NPR’s podcasts grew 40 percent over that time ... And NPR’s podcast ad income from the first five months of this fiscal year has outstripped its take in all of fiscal year 2014.” The podcast explosion also helped advance the business prospects of Radiotopia, a collective of digital-first audio programming which pioneered new story-driven shows and allowed its members to share technical and audience-growth expertise. Launched a few months before Serial in February 2014, Radiotopia was funded with a $200,000 initial grant from the Knight Foundation, raised over $600,000 in a Kickstarter campaign, and received an additional $1 million grant a year later. Finally, we should mention PRX; perhaps the most far-reaching experiment in hacking the public radio paradigm. Founded in 2003, PRX acts as a digital “exchange” through which NPR stations can trade audio content, including finished programs as well as streaming audio. The goal of PRX is to inject digital savvy into what its founders see as the staid world of NPR. The most important contribution of PRX lies not in its content (though much of that content is excellent) or even in the notion of a digital exchange; rather, it is really shaking things up because of its economic model and its overall worldview. One of PRX’s projects is Matter, a public-media “startup accelerator” in San Francisco that began as a collaboration between PRX, the Knight Foundation, and KQED. Startup accelerators take small chunks of startup equity in exchange for mentorship and early access to capital; after a few months, the participants in the accelerator “graduate.” While common to the world of Silicon Valley, it’s clear that at this point we have left the world of old-fashioned public radio, with its CPB funding reliance on Congressional appropriations, pledge drives, and tote bags far behind. Now, it’s possible that none of these initiatives will last very long. One the other hand, some of them may turn out to be very successful. What matters is less any individual initiative. Rather, it should be clear that even the relatively sedate world of public broadcasting is changing rapidly and will likely change more in the future.

20. What about public media organizations in other countries, like the British Broadcasting Corporation? What will their future be like?

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) along with other public media organizations in other countries, is funded differently than the predominantly American news companies we have discussed so far. Even public media in the United States is quite different from the BBC. We already noted how little money the U.S. spends on publicly funded journalism in comparison to other nations. But even the wealthiest, most powerful public service broadcasters are vulnerable to larger changes in journalism. Take the BBC, for instance. 96% of Britons help subsidize the BBC through their annual service fee, a tax that every British household with television service is obliged to pay, which makes the network of stations and websites run by the BBC both uniquely important and uniquely subject to political pressures. Conservative politicians have long decried the service fee as an anathema and a regressive tax on the public. And the directors and CEOs of other media outlets in the UK have complained that the power of the BBC gives it an unfair advantage in the emerging marketplace of digital news—it’s hard to compete with the BBC online, in other words. The BBC charter is up for renewal in 2016, which means that politicians and media figures will be debating its future intently. Some of the items up for debate include- should the BBC produce entertainment programming, or focus more on its core mission? Should the license fee be eliminated or modified? How should the corporation be governed and regulated? The BBC is a major producer of news both in the United Kingdom and in the English-speaking world, and the debate over its future is likely to have a major impact on the future of journalism, even in the United States.

21. What about streaming video in general? Will that become an increasingly popular way to get news?

Almost certainly it will. In general, news videos are able to command premium advertising prices (usually in the form of a pre-roll clip at the start of story) in the way that textually oriented stories are not. As web traffic speeds increase, we can also expect the ability to stream high quality video, including news video, to grow. The news experience online will become increasingly visual.

That said, it is likely that much of this footage will not resemble the traditional “local- network news set experience.” Rather we will see the emergence of decidedly new visual formats, ones that include raw footage from journalists on the scene of citizen journalists, infographics and other animated data-rich material, commentary, and the integration of social media into the televisual format.

22. So it seems like you’ve been avoiding a straight answer about this. What’s the business model for this new / old journalism hybrid?

There probably won’t just be one model. Subscriptions, metered walls, subscriptions, native advertisements, technology services, Silicon Valley investments, and government and foundation funding will probably all provide revenues to news organizations in the years to come. The biggest financial change for journalism organizations of the future will be their increasing need to diversify their funding streams. The days of a single, primary source of revenues to support newsgathering, are over.

23. What does the “rise of mobile” mean for the future of journalism?

By “rise of mobile,” news industry executives and journalism analysts refer to the very real fact that more than half of all internet use now is through movile devices, and that for a growing number of news publishers more half their traffic comes from mobile devices. But while the devices through which journalism is consumed are changing, many news publishers have yet to settle on an appropriate strategy for dealing with these changes. Not a lot of news is “optimized” for mobile devices, which means it is often hard to read and interact with on iPhones and Android devices. And think about how you find content on your mobile device. More likely than not you find it thouugh an app that is wired into a social network (Facebook, Twitter, etc) rather than searching for it on Google. The business of mobile news is also changing. As we might gather from the thoughts above, the relationship between journalism and social media changes in a mobilbe first universe, with publishers more dependent on staying in their good graces. And the way publishers get money in a mobile marketplace also changes. Data shows that customers are slightly more willing to pay for news on mobile devices but the market for display advertising is even worse than on desktops; screen sizes are tiny and ad are almost certainly seen as more of an annoyance than anything. And so, expect journalism to continue to wrestle with the implications of mobile technology in the years ahead. One interesting question wil be whether journalists can not only adapt to mobile technology but whether their need to adapt to this technology will finally convince them that they need to be constantly anticipating the next digital disruption to come along, a disruption that will likely force them to grapple with the production and distribution of their news content in new ways.

24. Is there a big difference between local and national news coverage when it comes to the future of news?

It’s hard to be totally certain about anything related to the future of news. But, if there’s one thing we can say with some degree of confidence, it is that national (and even international) news organizations and brands will probably be more economically successful than local or regional news outlets. It is more likely that the New York Times will be around in 20 years than the day-to- day business developments in the news industry. From the closure of the Rocky Mountain News in 2009; to the slashing of home delivery and even printing days in cities like Detroit, New Orleans, and Cleveland; to the bankruptcy of large regional chains like Philadelphia Newspapers LLC, the Journal Register Company, the Tribune Company and Sun Media Group, regional news organizations have been decimated in ways that their more global counterparts have not. But why should this be? Hasn’t the internet made it easier to give consumers of information exactly what they want to watch or read in a targeted fashion? Why aren’t local and regional news outlets looking at a bright future? One answer might be that local news websiite’s aren’t “sticky” enough. Local news websites account for only 15% of all news traffic on the web, with 85% going to national news sites; in terms of entire web traffic, local news counts for one-half of one percent. As one media scholar aptly put it, “local newspaper traffic is just a rounding error on the larger Web.” What’s even worse is that local news websites still aren’t doing a lot of the things their larger national rivals are doing- their web pages load slowly, they often look terrible and are awful to navigate, they are loaded with obnoxious advertisements, and they aren’t personalized. These days, national news websites also test out different story headlines simultaneously in order to see which one will draw the most readers—what people in the industry call “A/B testing.” Local news sites rarely do testing of this kind. There are at least four other possibilities for the relative dearth of local media success, beyond the very real fact that many of their websites are terrible. It is possible that national and international brands will simply continue to have a larger readership (or potential readership) and can thus command higher advertising rates on the open market. Related to this, it is also possible that the differences between advertising rates have more to with the demographic characteristics of New York Times and Wall Street Journal readers— distributed over a larger potential pool of readers, these companies can more easily target their content to the most valuable audiences. A third explanation might be that global and national news companies like the Times and Washington Post are family owned and have thus been able to stand up to the vicissitudes of the turbulent journalism market. The fourth and final explanation is the most seductively simple, but we need to be aware that even here there is contradictory and confusing information. Maybe people simply care more about national and international news. When the hyperlocal news organization Patch shut down most of its operations in late 2013, one of the reasons offered for its failure was that people simply didn’t care about local news; they care far more about events in the Middle East than events at a local Middle Eastern restaurant. But the data is unclear. Perhaps Patch folded, not because people don’t care about local news, but because it was poorly designed and poorly run. Perhaps, in fact, people only care about international news when they understand how it relates to their local circumstances. Maybe people care about international news more when they see how it relates to their daily lives. Even if that’s the case, though, it doesn’t help us answer our question- why are local news websites having such a tough time? A final interesting data point lies in what we might call the “nationalization” of the American news business. Forty years ago, there were many strong regional newspapers, and a few upper tier regional papers that had national ambitions— the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and perhaps the Chicago Tribune or the Philadelphia Inquirer. But the United States, unlike the United Kingdom or France, did not have a tradition of powerful national print news outlets. Our newspaper journalism was, like our politics, federalized. All of that has changed in the past twenty years. Now there is indeed an unquestionably national newspaper that dominates the American journalism market: the New York Times. The Washington Post continues to have national ambitions. And even formerly foreign papers, like the Guardian in the United Kingdom, have tried to carve out a U.S. national niche for themselves. The trends in the American new business seem to be towards increasing nationalization and even internationalization. And now that when national news is readily found elsewhere, its possible that citizens are less eager for the newspaper and has what seem to be reasonable substitutes – news acquired from friends, from neighbors, or even from local TV news.None of these explanations exclude any of the others, of course. And it may simply be that there is a greater diversity in business and organizational structure amongst news outlets with a national or global focus. But whatever the explanation, how we discuss “the future of journalism” depends a lot on what kind of journalism we are talking about – particularly whether it covers local, national, or international events.

25. It sounds like news coverage based on geographic location might be less important in years to come. Is that right? And if that’s the case, what coverage options are there other than geographical ones?

That’s probably right. News coverage of specifically geographical locations (cities, state government, etc) will continue, but will probably decline in number if not importance. Despite the struggles of local news media outlets and the trend toward nationalization that we discussed in the previous question, some of the most fascinating media experiments happening today are happening locally. Billy Penn in Philadelphia is a new startup focused on young people in the city who have traditionally not found journalism to be all that appealing to them. And there are other journalism outlets like the Texas Tribune (at the state level) and the New Jersey News Network (at the local level) that are pioneering exciting innovations. We are likely to see more of these kinds of experiments in the future. But even beyond the question of local, national, or international coverage, the future is likely to bring more and more non-location specific news services. Instead, we’ll probably see more and more digital news arranged around the overlapping interests of small groups of people, as well as and elite niches. One thing the Internet does quite well is that it allows communities to come together around topics of shared interest, regardless of where the people who make up those communities happen to live. Imagine a small group of people with an extremely rare disease. Under previous communication regimes, these people would have been scattered all across the country or world and might not have ever come to learn there were other people out there like them. With the internet, on the other hand, these scattered individuals can united to share important information, and perhaps eve learn enough about the illness they face that they can pool lifesaving information! And digital technologies don’t just affect how we learn anout rare illnesses. It affects how we learn about news and current information, too. Because news organizations (and advertisers) can now aggregate eyeballs from all over the world on particular topics, they can make a viable business out of catering to the coverage of very specific subjects that aren’t bound by geographical location. And a lot of times, these communities of interest shade into elite niches- in other words, folks who share particular interests and values that might be the provenance of the elite. If you care a lot about video games, or a particular esoteric issue in the foreign policy world, or your college rugby team, the digital news ecosystem has made it so much easier for you to have a place to go to learn about this stuff and for the organizations who provide it make money doing so. Beyond niche communities, even general interest news and information sites seem increasingly geographically displaced. Take Buzzfeed. What specific locality does Buzzfeed serve? English speakers, probably. And almost certainly a swath of mostly urban-dwelling young Americans. But beyond that, Buzzfeed really isn’t tied into a particular city, town, or even country in the same way news organizations of the past were. Instead, Buzzfeed embraces what we might call a “high traffic / high prestige” content strategy— posting an endless number of silly lists and quizzes, but also engaging in the collection and analysis of serious news. In other words, Buzzfeed drives a ton of its readership traffic because it produces an incredible number of whimsical quizzes, animated graphics (called graphic image files, or gifs) and lists such as “Ten Signs Your Were Born in the 70s.” But at the same time, Buzzfeed reports a lot of hard news, including original reporting from Washington DC, New York, Silicon Valley, and global “hot spots” around the world. This disparity – the silliness of a majority of their content combined with a niche of serious original news reporting— allows Buzzfeed to both generate huge traffic numbers (good for bulk advertising) but also attracts an elite audience that appeals to top brand advertisers in a different way. In both cases, Buzzfeed is certainly not tied to a geographic locale the way a lot of news of the 20th century was.

26. What about ethnic and other non-English language media in the United States, particularly Spanish language journalism?

The importance of Hispanic media outlets, such as Univision and Telemundo, is likely to grow in the future as the bilingual population of the United States increases. Certainly, Spanish- language journalism is not the only ethnic media in the United States, but in many ways it is the most central to the daily life of an increasingly politically assertive ethnic group. As of 2013 there were 54 million Hispanics in the United States (17% of the total population), but most of the growth in this population since 2000 has not occurred as a result of immigration. As a result, Hispanic Americans are increasingly bi-lingual or speak English only. How are these developments affecting the growth and health of Hispanic media in the United States? Spanish language newspapers (El Nuevo Herald, El Diario, La Opinion) are not immune from the general decline of the newspaper business, with each of these three papers losing between 7 and 10% of their circulation in 2014). And while Univision’s news program ratings actually declined in 2014, its total revenue grew 11% , from $2.6 billion to $2.9 billion. Rival Telemundo also saw its rating increase in 2014, as well as its finances. Hispanic media are not insulated from the general trends shaping the larger global news business. In relative terms, however, we should expect the power of these outlets to grow in the years ahead, as both the political and cultural impact of Hispanics continues to increase.

27. So does this mean we see news continue to fragment?

Maybe. There are two schools of thought on this. One school of thought provides us with an unambiguous “yes” in answer to that question. What does increased news fragmentation mean, in simple terms? It means that the news outlets of the future will be forced to rely on the patronage of smaller and smaller audiences with well- defined interests and reasons for consuming this journalistic content. And this need— to forsake a mass audience and the mass advertising that came with it—will mean an increasingly fragmented world of journalistic production. So why is this happening? Are changes in advertising driving changes in journalistic production strategies? Are we simply dealing with an empowered audience that now has more choices about what kind of media to consume than ever before? Or is technology in the drivers seat? One strategy to try to come to terms with these questions is to break the types of causes down into general “root causes.” So for instance, we might argue that technology is driving journalistic fragmentation. Or we might have evidence that changes in audience behavior are causing it. Or perhaps there are economic forces driving the changes. Understanding the root causes of audience fragmentation is important if we are to understand the future relationship between mass audiences, niche audiences, and journalism. If technology is causing audiences to fragment, then we might expect that new changes in technology over the next decade or two might help news organizations “rebundle” their audience – attract readers across a wide variety of niches. Perhaps the continued growth of Facebook, for instance will create a new “mass audience” for particular types of news. If audience preferences and economic models are driving fragmentation, on the other hand, journalists and editors might need to reconcile themselves to a world where people just consume the type of news they really care about and ignore the rest of it. The other school of thought asks us to shift our perspective and take a bit more of a “big picture” point of view. While much about the technology of the internet seems to be pushing towards fragmentation and dispersal, there are also globalizing trends (news articles that rapidly circulate across the globe, images of foreign protests that quickly draw massive amounts of attention, cultural preferences and consumer tastes) that perhaps draw aspects of the news business closer together. And even technology does more than simply push fragmentation. While fewer people than ever might watch the news on the “big 3 networks” of CBS, NBC, and ABC, new digital intermediaries like Facebook and Google have become widely used mass audience platforms, even though we don’t often think of them in those terms. Perhaps the best answer to the question of fragmentation is the least satisfying. Current trends are pushing both journalistic fragmentation and the re-integration of mass media audiences. The future will see both increased fragmentation and integration at the same time.

28. So is this fragmentation a bad thing?

In a lot of ways the answer to that question depends on your larger thoughts about how politics ought to be practiced and what your notion of the “ideal citizen” really is. A lot of future of news commentators speak as if digital fragmentation was universally bad. It certainly sounds terrible—fragmentation implies the shattering of something whole. But what the fragmentation of news audiences also does is that it creates new commjnities, and new freedoms to learn about the issues that concern them directly. Perhaps’s the internet really has shattered the large community conversation that existed in the era of monopoly local newspapers and three big networks. But we shouldn’t forget that that “large conversation” also reflected the narrow interests of a specific group of people and often excluded many other points of view. Now, these less powerful communities can be created out of the very process of fragmentation itself, and with this can come new freedoms to engage in politics in new ways.

29. Will the kinds of news collaborations discussed in Part Two continue? How might they change in the future?

Collaborations will continue, and will become more common. But they will be more likely for certain kinds of journalism than others. Non-profit news organizations, like Pro Publica, have led the way in partnering with major newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Newspapers in Ohio are sharing content of statewide concern. Local newspapers and radio stations are collaborating with each other more frequently on items like news, TV, and weather. It’s obvious that this trend toward collaboration and sharing, as opposed to competition and “scoops,” is important. But will it last? First off, its important to keep in mind that collaboration is still a minority practice within the news industry. The Washington Post and the New York Times still aggressively compete, and the papers express quiet dismay when one paper scoops the other. The New York Post and the New York Daily News act the same way when it comes to city news. Inter-organizational competition is buried deeply within the DNA of most modern news organizations, and it is unlikely that these tendencies will change overnight. But it seems clear that collaborations will become more and more important. The near- immediate accessibility of content on the internet makes beating your competitor seem less important to the people who read the news, if not always the people who make it. The fact that so many people access news stories through web platforms like Google, Twitter, and Facebook means that they often don’t even know the outlets responsible for producing that content. The technological ability to collaborate across institutions is obviously more possible in the 21st century than the 20th. And, the relatively diminished economic standing of the traditional news business means that there will be an economic incentive to work together as well. Certain types of collaboration will thrive while others will either diminish or never get off the ground. We can expect the most common collaborations to involve a certain type of investigative reporting, in which institutional practices of governments or corporations are exposed by a team of reporters at different news outlets. Less formal, more organic, and less frequent “collaborations” will probably occur during breaking news events, usually involving journalistic organizations linking to other organizations news and reposting their once original content. There are probably elements of news production that will never be collaborative— these relate to certain forms of investigative journalism, one that involves the exposure of hidden and deceitful deeds by individuals, rather than patterns of corruption at institutions. In other words, for the foreseeable future, we should expect some collaborations to work better than others.

30. Facebook and news companies are increasingly working together to host some news stories. Is this another example of news industry partnership and collaboration?

It is, although some commentators have wondered how much of an equal partnership it actually is. In question sixty-five, we discussed the Facebook “Instant Articles” program. But the shifting relationships between Facebook and news organizations are only a single example of what some scholars and commentators have called the “platformization of news.” What they mean is this- there is a difference between functioning as a platform and functioning as a publisher. Historically, publishers were businesses responsible for creating, commissioning, financing, and publishing media content. Platforms, on the other hand, present themselves as distinctively different from publishers—they host content of all shapes and sizes rather than publishing content they themselves have generated. Publishers include the New York Times, CBS Evening News, the BBC, and Time Magazine. Platforms include Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. We might analogize platforms as being kind of like cable television – a content host and a distribution network with a lot of power. What does all this mean for the future of journalism and news? One of the most important developments in journalism over the next decade or so will surely be the increased dependence of news organizations on platforms for traffic as well as for driving media innovation in new directions. These platforms are powerful – more powerful, perhaps, than news organizations themselves, even as they began to act more like publishers than they did originally in making (often opaque) editorial judgments about what content to host and how. In other words, platforms no longer simply host news content that their users think is important. They are playing an active role in the business of journalism itself. “Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are emerging as the ABC, CBS, and NBC of the 21st century — sites that attract vastly more traffic than most others,” one commentator writes. Companies purely in the business of journalism will increasingly be at the mercy of these platforms – and in response, they may try to become platforms themselves.

31. It has been said “journalists will start having to build their own personal brands.” What does this mean?

In the summer of 2013, Nate Silver— statistics wizard, inventor of the popular “538” website, and correct prognosticator of the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections— dropped the bombshell that he was leaving the New York Times to start his own 538 website under the corporate umbrella of ESPN. The news was particularly surprising given that, up until that point, Silver’s story was that of a previously unknown but successful blogger plucked out of relative obscurity by the Times who went on to have a powerful impact at the most important news publication of the 21st century. Now, suddenly, the story was being rewritten, with the Times losing its Monte Carlo simulation wunderkind. What exactly is going on? One way to think about the story of Nate Silver and the 538 website is that it is indicative of a larger trend in the news business: the old, corporate brands are now less powerful than the brands of individual journalists themselves. Pioneering blogger Andrew Sullivan’s decision to launch his own stand-alone website, funded entirely by donations, added further evidence to this speculation. Journalists with a strong social media presence, a unique voice or set of technical skills, and a proven ability to drive traffic were now in a newfound position of power vis a vis their employers. Once upon a time, a journalist depended on a corporate or institutional media brand to provide her with a voice and a megaphone for that voice. But now, digital media encourages— even mandates—that journalists be themselves and no longer hide their individuality under the cloak of an institutional voice. What’s more, this trend will accelerate in the future, some commentators argue. News institutions will become a collection of powerful individual voices. “The reality is that individual brands like Sullivan and Silver now arguably have as much or more power as the traditional brands they used to align themselves with,” one important internet writer speculated. The big question is how outlets like the Times and others will handle that re-balancing of power, and whether they will ultimately win or lose — and with the ongoing decline of print revenue, the stakes for traditional outlets are higher than they have ever been.” Future journalists will need to do more to cultivate their individual personality, voice, skill- set, and presence in the larger social media ecosystem than the journalists of the mid-to-late-20th century. But we also shouldn’t assume that, in the not-so-distant future, news institutions will simply become a collection of stars. ESPN had no problem eventually firing one of its biggest stars (the sports columnist Bill Simmons) and letting him move to HBO. Andrew Sullivan retired from blogging not all that long after he launched his own site. As for Nate Silver, the jury remains out as to whether or not his impact has been the same outside the New York Times brand as it was within it.

32. What is “entrepreneurial journalism?” Is this a Silicon Valley thing?

Entrepreneurial journalism is a term that didn’t emerge until 2008 or so, but its usage has become common in the years since. Originally it was the title of a new degree program at the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate School of Journalism. And even though the term has come to mean a number of other things since then, the original definition of entrepreneurial journalism is helpfully clear and straightforward. “Our goal,” they write, “is to help create a sustainable future for quality journalism. We believe that the future will be shaped by entrepreneurs who develop new business models and innovative projects – either working on their own, with startups, or within traditional media companies.” In other words entrepreneurial journalists not only take on the traditional journalistic roles of collecting, verifying, and distributing publicly relevant information, but they have an entire second job as well. By learning about how the news business works, by being technologically savvy, by keeping an open mind and my not being wedded to the old ways of doing things, these journalists- either through starting new companies or innovating within old companies—will help chart out the future of the news business itself. And along the way they might just make some money.

33. But isn’t entrepreneurialism bad in a lot of ways? Doesn’t it just accept, without protest, the fact that journalism is now a risky way to earn a living?

On the surface, the emergence of entrepreneurial journalism and the entrepreneurial journalist is a straightforward development. The journalism industry is collapsing. A lot of traditional jobs are disappearing, No one knows what comes next. “An entrepreneurial mindset” has helped turn Silicon Valley into an economic powerhouse and has revolutionized both American industry and communications. Given all this, why shouldn’t journalists and journalism students attempt to innovate in order to push their industry in new directions? All of this is true, but recent scholarship on entrepreneurial journalism has complicated the picture somewhat. Entrepreneurial journalism is really three things, not just one It involves a sense of journalists inventing their own jobs by starting their own companies and developing new journalism techniques. It also implies a second important journalistic skill: the importance of self-promotion and personal branding (particularly on social media) to achieve professional success. Finally, entrepreneurial journalism signals a journalists willingness to embrace work flexibly and in precarious conditions—in other words, to come to terms with the fact that the journalism industry is a tough industry, that it is unlikely to get better any time soon, and those going into it should have realistic expectations. Once again, none of this is bad per se. It is important for journalists to be realistic about the business they are getting into. And there’s nothing wrong with pioneering new ways to do journalism. The complication arises from the fact that most entrepreneurial journalism programs and discourses embrace a certain form of techno-market fundamentalism: the notion that the two things that will save journalism are the free market and technological developments. This discounts the possibility that the free market and technology might fail, and if they do, certain forms of public intervention might be required in order to provide the journalism that democracy requires. In other words, there’s nothing wrong with entrepreneurial journalism per se, as long as it remains open to the possibility that entrepreneurialism alone might not be enough to create a positive future for the news business.

34. Will journalists have to know more about specific topic areas as opposed to just being generalists?

They might. It’s important to keep in mind, in general, journalists have been knowing more and more about the topics they cover for a long time. Over the course of the last century and a half, journalists have been increasingly expected to be experts. Subject matter knowledge on the part of reporters is part of the general professionalization process that transformed journalism from a disreputable blue collar craft to an at least moderately respected occupation by the mid- 20th century. Beat reporters, from early days of journalism, took pride in both their ability to understand the nuances of particular places and situations as well as their skill in translating those nuances for a popular audience. One big question is whether the balance between types of expertise is shifting, with journalists expected to know more and more about the topics they cover. Fusion writer and editor Felix Salmon summed a good deal of the conventional wisdom on this question when he blogged in early 2015 that “there were two areas where the future remains bright [for digital journalists] … First for the the superstars. … And second: old-fashioned specific expertise. Not digital expertise, about social media optimization or anything like that. But subject-matter expertise is still hard to obtain and can retain significant value, depending on what the subject is.” Is gaining subject expertise a good career move for the young journalist of the future? It probably is. In a world increasingly populated by various forms of pseudo-journalism- online opinion essays, social media marketing, public relations material disguised as journalism— being an expert in a particular area is one way for reporters to distinguish themselves. And promoting subject mater expertise is good for news organizations as well. Now that media companies can target their most loyal and engaged readers, it is increasingly more important to cater to the specific and passionate interests of those readers. Thus the rise in importance of the subject matter experts. Of course, it also helps if the subject in question lends itself well to the commercial structure of the internet, with particularly meaningful subjects including technology, economics and business, and popular culture. That said, there will still be room for generalist reporters, especially at the startup level. However, to rise in the professional ranks, it is likely that the future will require greater subject matter expertise as a condition of newsroom employment, rather than as a consequence of it.

35. How else will journalism school change in order to train these new journalists?

There have always been debates about the purpose and role of journalism school; in the early 20th century Columbia University actually originally turned down Joseph Pulitzer’s original bequest to establish a school in journalism there because the profession was considered “unsuitable” for a Columbia graduate. And despite the fact that journalism professionals are more educated than they have ever been, controversy about journalism school remains. Is it doing a good job training students given all the changes to the industry in the past few decades? What is the right balance between teaching skills, teaching abstract concepts, and providing students with grounding in the liberal arts and humanities? How can schools possibility keep up with all the new technologies that are increasingly being used by newsrooms? Despite all the debate there seems to be a growing consensus that journalism schools need to de a better job teaching their students quantitative (numerical) reporting skills, in part due to the explosion of digital data that defines the contemporary information landscape, in part because the skills required to adequately report the news are increasingly quantitative in nature. There is also a consensus that students are going to increasingly have to think visually, even if they plan on primarily being writers or working in audio journalism. This increasingly requires thinking about journalism education in terms of how it relates to other social sciences, to information visualization and design, and to the larger discipline known as “data journalism.”

36. Tell me more about this “data journalism.” Does that mean that every journalist should learn to write computer code?

There’s little doubt that “data journalism” has become one of the most important subfields of journalism in the past ten years, and even less doubt that this will be a major journalistic growth area in the future. Data journalism might be defined as the application of statistical techniques to the analysis of diverse evidentiary sources such as databases, opinion surveys, and government records, and the subsequent crafting of narratives that stem from this analysis. In other words, data journalism treats data as a kind of journalistic “source,” on par with other more traditional journalistic sources like documents, interviews, and direct observations. Practical applications of data journalism actually precede the emergence of the Internet, though one thing that makes today’s data journalism unique is the growth of interactivity and the use of open source documents and tools. Some of the earliest modern applications of data-driven statistical techniques to news reporting can be found in Philip Meyer’s work, elaborated in the book Precision Journalism published by Indiana University Press in 1973. In it, Meyer urges his readers to go beyond the anecdotal in their practice of journalism, using coverage of the Detroit riots of 1967 as an example. Most of the journalism that attempted to explain the riots used somewhat randomly chosen individuals and prominent government officials as their sources, which resulted in a series of factors—poor assimilation by black southern migrants, low education levels and socio- economic standing—that rung true but were later proven false. Meyer, on the other hand, conducted representative surveys of city residents. These revealed that actual grievances such as police brutality, overcrowded living conditions, poor housing, and lack of jobs were the primary motivations for the disturbances. Meyer’s findings also showed that the rioters were a specific subgroup and did not reflect the overall attitudes of the area’s African-American residents. Computer-Assisted Reporting (or CAR) was one of the journalistic sub-disciplines to emerge from Meyer’s work. In the 1980s and 90s, journalists interested in generating stories from data and using data to shed light on news developments were increasingly using computers, both to access datasets and to carry out the number crunching required to turn this information into narratives. Prominent examples of computer assisted, data-driven reporting included a 1969 Miami Herald analysis that used a computer to uncover patterns in the criminal justice system; a 1972 New York Times story that looked at discrepancies in crime rates reported by the police; and a 1988 Pulitzer Prize winning investigation called “The Color of Money,” which dealt with redlining in middle class black neighborhoods. In 1989, Investigative Reporters and Editors founded NICAR, the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting. As should be obvious from its name, CAR emphasized the technology that lay behind the data—computers—more than the original concept of precision journalism, which was more philosophical in its argument that journalists should use social scientific technique regardless of the tools needed to do it. And it should be obvious that while many data journalists are indeed computer programmers, not all are even today, and historically very few of them have been. Its possible, however, that this is changing. Today (and increasingly so in the future) we can expect data journalism to emphasize interactivity (the ability of news consumers themselves to “play” with journalistic data, to personalize it, to visualize it in different ways, and so on) and transparency (making the data sets that lie at the core of data journalism open to analysis by the wider public or by other researchers and journalists). Both of these skills sets are greatly aided by a facility with software languages and computer programming.

37. So is the future of data journalism really just an extension of this earlier, social- scientifically oriented journalism?

In some ways yes. The data journalism we talked about in the previous answer should have a bright and happy future. Journalism is increasingly embracing these sorts of techniques as it reports the news. It is aggregating already existing data, generating new data, and subjecting this data to scrutiny and analysis as it generates new stories about the world. Visualization techniques are increasingly sophisticated. And a number of websites- Nate Silver’s 538.com, the Upshot at the New York Times,, ProPublica, and many others—are practicing a form of data journalism that Phil Meyer and the founders of NICAR would recognize. There’s a difference, though, between data journalism, and other computer-based forms of journalism that’s worth emphasizing. There is an even newer form of quantitative journalism- we might call it computational, or structured journalism—that is different from the social scientific journalism we have discussed so far. In a nutshell, this kind of journalism focuses less on the social scientific analysis of data sets and more on generating a kind of data that can be easily aggregated and processed by a computer algorithm. Rather than applying social scientific analysis to data sets, this kind of journalism tries to create a large-scale journalistic database of people, events, locations, and other newsworthy incidents that can be combined and recombined in different ways. In other words, rather than writing a 500 word story on a shooting in Washington DC, structured journalism would plug the relevant information about the shooting (the neighborhood where it took place, the date, the and gender race of the victim, and so forth) into a database that could later be analyzed both by computer algorithms and working journalists. In some ways, the idea of journalists constructing a database sounds ridiculous: who would want to read such a thing, and who would want to spend their day doing it? But imagine such a database about homicides in Washington DC (such a thing actually exists, by the way, called Homicide Watch) that got built over a period of months or years and might be able to eventually tell us about the politics of gun control and crime in the nation’s capital. This is the promise of structured journalism, and it’s likely we’re going to be seeing more of it in the future.

38. Does that mean that the storytelling function of journalism is just going to disappear?

Almost certainly not. Indeed, one of the special things about journalism, and one thing about it that will probably distinguish it from many other data-centric ways of communicating over the coming years, is the fact that it will always be interested in telling good stories.. Even amidst all the hype about data journalism, structured journalism, and computational reporting, it is remarkable the degree to which journalists maintain their fidelity to news narratives. “We use [data] tools to find and tell stories,” wrote journalist and developer Anthony Debarros on his blog in 2010. “We use them like we use a telephone. The story is still the thing.” Computer Assisted Reporting pioneer Philip Meyer has also argued that both “narrative journalism and precision journalism, are special forms requiring special skills. If we were to blend the two, what should we call it? I like the term “evidence-based narrative.” It implies good storytelling based on verifiable evidence. Yes, that would be an esoteric specialty. But I believe that a market for it is developing. The information marketplace is moving us inexorably toward greater and greater specialization.” Even the most committed practitioners of data oriented journalism, in short, imagine much more of a synthesis between the narrative and data-based aspects of their craft. The story-based function of news reporting appears unlikely to go away any time soon. Conveying information via narrative seems to be one of the few things that make journalism journalism.

39. But -- is it true that robots will really write news stories?

Indeed. Not only will robots write news stories sometime in the distant future—they already are. In 2012 news executives started paying attention to companies with names like Narrative Science and Automated Insights. Although Narrative Science began as an academic project that united computer scientists and journalists at Northwestern University, it quickly started having an impact on the real, live, journalism world, producing narrativized blurbs about company earning reports that appeared in newspapers like the Financial Times. Automated Insights, founded by a former Cisco engineer, is doing the same thing for sports stories using box scores and other sports data. And in perhaps most earth shaking development of all, the first story about a 2014 4.7 magnitude Los Angeles earthquake was written by a robot, called Quakebot. As a writer for Salon explained it, “whenever an alert comes in from the U.S. Geological Survey about an earthquake above a certain size threshold, Quakebot is programmed to extract the relevant data from the USGS report and plug it into a pre-written template. The story goes into the Los Angeles Times content management system, where it awaits review and publication by a human editor.” In essence, these companies and news organizations are using computer algorithms and simple natural language processing techniques to extract words and sentences from data-rich reports and turn them into fairly typical news stories. We can expect these sorts of endeavors to become more and more common over the next decade. Many commentators have even expressed concern that robots will take over the jobs of human journalists! However, what this all means for the future of journalism, news, and journalistic employment, is less clear. There are really two questions to ask when it comes to the impact of robot journalism on the future of news production. The first concerns the kind of stories these robots are writing. One thing that’s essential to understand is that all these programs-- whether they are drawing on box scores or earnings reports or earthquake information—are using a particular type of data as evidence, a type of data that easily lends itself to becoming what we might call structured data. As its name implies, structured data is data that comes with a built-in organizing structure, where the information within it is already into categories or internal groupings. This is the equivalent of numbers that might be found in a spreadsheet. Some journalistic raw data, like box scores, exists as structured data from the beginning, and other data, like earnings reports and information from the U.S. Geological Survey, lend themselves very easily to structuring. And while it is likely that data processing techniques will advance rapidly over the years ahead, it seems clear that robot journalists are good at writing stories of a particular kind, the kind of journalism that often appears as if it was written by a robot already. In reply to those who have worried that computerized narrative journalism will replace human being with robots, the inventor of Quakebot has wisely responded that he doesn’t see programs like his and others like it as replacing journalists but rather freeing journalists up to do more important kinds of reporting. A second question, though, is whether this type of “narrative science” makes enough economic sense for it to become a major player in journalistic production routines. The computer scientists and startup companies that produce these kinds of products ultimately rely on clients (like the Financial Times) to purchase their software – and news companies do not have a large amount of excess cash to be throwing around to pay for robot journalism. The actual utility of turning box scores into stories, and the cost required to pay for services to make it happen, may not make much sense for your average newspaper in 2016. These dynamics can help explain the fact that, in late 2014, the founders of Narrative Science noted they were focusing on “enterprise clientele” rather than newsrooms: “Narrative Science now courts organizations like financial- service providers who may have already invested in data-gathering services but have no idea what to do with all that information” they wrote. Financial service providers may be in far greater need of, and far more willing to pay for, the kinds of algorithmic services offered by Narrative Science than news organizations.

40. Are changes in the news media system feeding political polarization in American society or just exploiting it? And will political polarization grow in the future?

A 2014 Pew Research Journalism Project survey showed that people with strong conservative or liberal political views tend to favor certain news media and stay away from others. And they follow a similar pattern in their use of social media. “When it comes to getting news about politics and government, liberals and conservatives inhabit different worlds,” Pew concluded. “There is little overlap in the news sources they turn to and trust.” Ideological conservatives mostly watched a single news source: Fox News. And whole ideological liberals consumed a greater range news and opinion from a wider range of sources, most of these sources were towards the moderate-liberal end of the political spectrum-- The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, NPR, MSNBC, the Huffington Post, and so on.. Liberals strongly distrusted Fox News and conservative talk radio personalities, while conservatives strongly distrusted most of the other cable and broadcast networks. As Pew pointed out, most Americans find news from a variety of digital sources every day, but the most conservative and the most liberal news consumers have tended to engage more in political conversations and activity. And yet the academic research conducted into the relationship between media consumption and political belief paints a complex picture. Prior sums it up well: “athough political attitudes of most Americans have remained fairly moderate, evidence points to some polarization among the politically involved. Proliferation of media choices lowered the share of less interested, less partisan voters and thereby made elections more partisan. But evidence for a causal link between more partisan messages and changing attitudes or behaviors is mixed at best. Measurement problems hold back research on partisan selective exposure and its consequences.” That said, it’s obvious that Fox News and websites and blogs like Daily Caller, Matt Drudge’s Drudge Report and Lucianne Goldberg’s Lucianne.com are heavily skewed toward conservatives and MSNBC and websites and blogs like The Huffington Post, Think Progress and Markos Moulitas’s Daily Kos are similarly skewed toward liberals. Its most likely that the media and politicized voters are trapped in kind of a vicious circle: partisan media feed polarization in the electorate, which increases demand for partisan media, and so on. But journalism might not be the main reason why American politics have gotten so polarized. Changes in campaign spending laws are another reason. Demographic clustering and district gerrymanding are yet more reasons. The rise of primary elections that push candidates to appeal to their base is another. All of these macro-political factors are related to changes in journalism and the media, but not always directly.

41. How will the relationship between journalism and democracy change in the future?

Modern professional journalism in the United States emerged at a particular moment under particular conditions. Although journalism did not fully professionalize until the early 20th century, the Penny Press marked the onset of a new kind of journalism, a new kind of economy, and a new form of mass democracy. Throughout the 20th century as politics, economics, and technology transformed, journalism changed as well, though it never strayed too far from its basic mid-19th century roots. Now, with massive shifts in other aspects of modern life, will we see the relationship between journalism and democracy change as well? Journalism is responding to larger changes in society as much as it is driving those changes in society. So it’s important to ask: is democracy itself changing in the 21st century? How might we expect it to change more in the future? And how will these changes affect the mechanisms citizens have used to get information about the important public events of the day. There are many possible answers to this question, but let’s focus on three of them. In one possible future, journalism remains much the same as it always has been, with only subtle transformations around the edges. In a second future, journalism is radically different, in part because the public and the American democratic state are different as well. Our third possible future actually takes a longer, more historic view: American democracy has already radically changed since the middle of the 20th century, and journalism is actually just catching up to these changes now. This first perspective in essence agues that, while there have been many important changes in the news business, there hasn’t been a deep change in what journalism, “at bottom, is, and is for.” Why? Because for journalism to radically change in this way, democracy and the institutions of democracy (elections, campaign advertisements, the relationship between the three branches of government, etc) would have to change as well. And they haven’t, or at least, they haven’t changed enough. In an even deeper sense, the larger spheres of society (journalism’s notion of the public, the embedded understanding of democratic governance, the economic system, and so on) have not shifted enough to shift the fundamental purpose of journalistic work. Journalists still orient themselves towards a form of professional work and a notion of the public that is mostly the same as it was a century or even two centuries ago. There is, however, a second and more radical possible future for journalism and for democracy itself. We might also envision a world in which the majority of citizens know very little about politics and care about politics even less, a world where interest groups and politically passionate actors provide both the normative orientation for news production but also the economic means of sustaining it. In other words, journalism could come to see itself as serving many publics rather than a public, and could become far more comfortable embracing an agonistic system of democratic governance. In this second possible future, journalists would serve special interests rather than the polity as a whole. What’s more, the very form of news work might change- it would become all about providing intelligence to people who have economic or partisan reasons to care about the news rather than information about the latest late-breaking general interest events. Journalism of this sort would harken back to an older, pre-Penny Press form of reporting. It is possible that the news of the future will be more similar to the news of the past. The third possible future is one in which democracy is actually stronger today rather than weaker, as in the second answer, or largely unchanged, as in the first. In short: democracy wasn’t all that strong sixty or seventy years ago, it has grown stronger recently, and the media is finally catching in the digital age to this changed state of affairs. According to this third view, there is much greater public monitoring of government activity than ever before – more of that activity is open to public scrutiny, more of it is scrutinizable by changes in how government operates. At the same time, more private organizations are busy scrutinizing government than ever before – scrutinizing, publicizing what they find, and sometimes suing the government to enforce their view of what the law requires. The news media has not been an unchanged bystander during this growth of “monitorial democracy,” it has aided, abetted, and taken advantage of these changes. And the new digital media ecosystem – one in which a network of amateur watchdogs and professional interest groups interact with online old and new news organizations— is the partial culmination of this process. These three answers provide us with different normative understandings of the future relationship between digital journalism and democracy. According to answer one, neither democracy nor the media have changed in fundamental and important ways. If we believe answer two, democracy has gotten weaker. And according to answer three, democracy (and journalism) is in some important ways better now than they have ever been. Of course, we don’t have to pick just one of these answers and one of these futures to the exclusion of all others. Like much else, the future is complicated. The right answer to this question may be some complex combination of all three possibilities.